Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3999 (UTT)

VEENA GUPTA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

ABA/282/2025 · 2025-04-02

Alok Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:2401 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 2nd APRIL, 2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.282 of 2025 Smt. Veena Gupta and Others ..…Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present Application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Case Crime No.91 of 2020 (Criminal Case No.5468 of 2021), registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. 2. Pursuant to letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Principal Secretary, Home, a Special Investigation Team was constituted in the scholarship scam matter. Sub- Inspector Keshwanand Purohit was a member of the said Special Investigation Team. The matter was enquired. After enquiry, an FIR was lodged against the owner and manager of Shriram Institute of Professional 2025:UHC:2401 2 Studies, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh), Kalka Engineering College, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) and Kalka Institute for Research and Advanced Studies, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh). 3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that the applicants were trustees of the Trust, namely, Shri Sai Educational Welfare Trust. Shriram Institute of Professional Studies, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) was run by the said Trust. The scholarship amounts were not received by the applicants. The scholarship amounts were directly deposited in the accounts of the concerned students by the Social Welfare Department. Applicants have not misused any amount of the scholarship. Applicant no.1, aged about 69 years, applicant no.2, aged about 50 years, and the applicant no.3, aged about 55 years, are not previous convicts. 5. Objection has not been filed. 6. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General for the State has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally. 2025:UHC:2401 3 7. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, for the applicants has further submitted that interim relief was granted to the applicants in WPCRL No.1810 of 2020, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the First Information Report, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 8. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General for the State submitted on instruction that charge- sheet has already been submitted, hence, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. 9. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, Smt. Veena Gupta, Amit Agarwal and Sushant Mittal, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like 2025:UHC:2401 4 amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case. (iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court. 11. It is made clear that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dated: 02.04.2025 Pant/